In re Sequoia G.

Syllabus

The respondent mother appealed to this court from the judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights as to her minor children, S, B and A. She claimed that the court improperly found that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate her parental rights. Held that there was ample evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the minor children as the court's findings as to the children's best interests, made pursuant to statute (§ 17a-112 (k)), were factually sup- ported and legally sound, such that this court would not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court: it was not inappropriate for the court to have considered, as to the emotional ties factor in § 17a-112 (k) (4), the bond between the children and their foster parents, and, although the court did not specifically discuss the feelings and emotional ties of the children with respect to the mother when stating its findings, it did not follow that the court failed to consider those feelings and ties, as reading the court's decision as a whole revealed that the court considered them and that it determined that the children and the mother did not have a strong bond; moreover, when the court's decision was read as a whole, the court's factual findings supported its conclusion under § 17a-112 (k) (3) that the mother had not complied with her obligations in connection with certain of the court's orders, including that it was not clearly erroneous for the court to find that she had not fulfilled her obligations regarding visitation with the children; further- more, as to A, the mother did not direct this court to any case law indicating that a court has an obligation, sua sponte, to consider a less onerous means of achieving permanency planning in the absence of a motion specifically seeking an alternative permanency plan, and, because the issue of whether a transfer of guardianship was appropriate for